ALBANY, May 31 — As the issue of gay marriage finally reached New York State's highest court on Wednesday, the six judges who heard the passionate arguments from both sides put forth a fundamental question: Has marriage been defined by history, culture and tradition since the dawn of Western civilization, or is it an evolving social institution that should change with the times?

During the two and a half hours of oral argument, the judges on the Court of Appeals grappled with essential questions of social values, asking tough questions without tipping their hands as to their ultimate decision.

They wanted to know whether there were studies showing that children raised by mothers and fathers turned out better than those raised by same-sex couples, and they wanted to know whether opening the door to gay marriage would also open the door to bigamy or polygamy.

They wanted to know whether asking the courts to rewrite New York State's marriage laws was a way of letting the State Legislature escape responsibility for taking a position on a social controversy.

The case before the court was a challenge to New York State's marriage laws, filed by 44 same-sex couples. Their lawyers argued that marriage was a fundamental right, and compared laws assuming marriage to be a union of a man and a woman to the laws prohibiting interracial marriage, which the Supreme Court struck down in 1967.

Lawyers defending the marriage laws argued that even if the institution had evolved, it was the job of the Legislature — not the courts — to change them.

The plaintiffs' lawyers argued that the court merely had to change the gender-based language of the current law, which refers to "husband" and "wife," to something neutral, like "spouse." If the court agreed to legalize same-sex marriages, New York would become only the second state, after Massachusetts, to do so.

The judges' questions pointed to the precedent-setting nature of the debate. "Isn't this the only one where you have literally the whole history of Western civilization against you?" asked Judge Robert S. Smith of the state's domestic relations law. "That does go back right to the dawn of civilization."

After first citing traditional views of marriage, Judge Smith then asked whether the time was ripe for the courts to approve same-sex marriage. Judge Smith also wondered whether the issue of same-sex marriage deserved special attention because of the history of discrimination against gay people.

"Aren't homosexuals about the classic example of people who have been abused and discriminated against," and who therefore need the protection of the courts? he asked.

Peter H. Schiff, senior counsel to the state attorney general, said there was no urgent need to change the law, and pointed out that same-sex couples accounted for only 1.3 percent of all households in New York State, a "very small" number.

The main lawsuit in this case was filed by a gay and lesbian rights group, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, on behalf of five same-sex New York City couples against the city clerk, Victor L. Robles, who issues marriage licenses.

In New York, the legal dispute over same-sex marriage goes back two years. In February 2005, a State Supreme Court judge in Manhattan found that state marriage law violated the State Constitution. That decision was overturned last December by the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court, which said it was up to the Legislature to change the law.

In yesterday's hearing, the New York City plaintiffs were joined by three other groups of plaintiffs from across the state. New York City's lawyer, Leonard Koerner, said yesterday that even in its own case law, the Court of Appeals had affirmed the reason for marriage as "the begetting of offspring," not, as the plaintiffs argued, as the sanctioning of a loving and committed union between two people.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has said that New York City is appealing the case to clarify the issue, and that he supports legislative change.

Roberta A. Kaplan, arguing for same-sex marriage on behalf of 12 of the couples across the state, said there were 46,000 families with children headed by same-sex couples in New York State, and that they could not wait until their children were grown for the law to change.

The seventh judge on the Court of Appeals, Albert M. Rosenblatt, removed himself from the case. His daughter, a lawyer, has argued on behalf of advocates for same-sex marriage in California. Judge Rosenblatt has been perceived as a swing vote in many cases. A spokesman for the court said that in the event of a 3-3 tie, another judge could be brought in. He said a tie had occurred only once in the last 20 years or so.

Judge Victoria A. Graffeo asked whether, under the plaintiffs' argument, the Legislature should afford more rights and benefits to other types of family arrangements, such as two sisters raising children. "Was the Legislature denying them due process or equal protection?" she asked.

Judge George Bundy Smith asked what the consequences of legalizing gay marriage had been in Massachusetts.

"Basically nothing," Ms. Kaplan replied. "There is not a breakdown of civil society in Massachusetts and there certainly isn't a breakdown of marriage."

Judge Bundy Smith also asked why gay couples were not satisfied with civil unions — a remedy that the plaintiffs argued would make them second-class citizens.

Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye said the court would have to decide the constitutional questions, "whether we do it frontally or whether we do it in some more subversive way," like changing language about gender.

To which Terence Kindlon, a lawyer for same-sex couples in Albany, replied, "Subversive is one of the words I've liked all my life, your honor."

New York State's highest court started hearing a case on Wednesday that gay rights activists hope will overturn as unconstitutional a state law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The New York case is one of several initiatives by gay rights activists across the United States where gay marriage has been a divisive issue in recent years, particularly in the 2004 presidential election.

"There are 46,000 families of same-sex couples with children in New York and there is no dispute they are stable families who are excluded from the benefits of marriage," said Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who was representing many of the same-sex couples.

In more than two hours of argument before the State Court of Appeals, Kaplan said the court should change the state's ban on gay marriage just as in the past it threw out laws that had allowed marital rape and criminalized sodomy.

"Despite tradition, this court found that these laws were unconstitutional and didn't meet rational basis," she said.

Massachusetts is the only state to permit gays to marry, while Vermont allows same-sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage but calls them civil unions.

In the November 2004 election, ballot measures were passed in 11 states to ban gay marriages.

The New York case involves 48 gay and lesbian couples who filed four separate cases from across the state. The cases are being heard together by the court in Albany.

In one of the cases, couples were married by local clergy but denied marriage licenses at city hall.

Dan O'Donnell, an openly gay state lawmaker who brought one of the cases, was in the quiet but packed courtroom. He is the brother of entertainer Rosie O'Donnell, who married her lesbian partner in Massachusetts.

"We will prevail here," he said outside the courthouse. "It's the right and just thing to do."

Under 97-year-old state law, marriage is defined as between a man and woman. The same-sex couples claim the law violates their constitutional rights because it defends sex discrimination. They argue that the state constitution doesn't ban gay marriage and can be more loosely interpreted.

In February, the law was upheld in a lower appeals court, forcing the fight to the State Court of Appeals.

STATE LEGISLATURE

New York's Deputy Solicitor General Peter Schiff said it was a matter for the state legislature to change the law.

"The state said it was a case for the state legislature, but I think it's a case of discrimination that needs to be addressed," said Cindy Swadba, a lesbian who married her partner in Massachusetts and came to show her support.

Seventeen-year-old Alya Shain came from New York City with her parents, Jo-ann Shain and Mary Jo Kennedy, who will celebrate their 25th anniversary together in June. "These are my two parents and they have instilled values in me and they deserve the same rights as married people," Alya Shain said.

There was no sign of protesters against gay-marriage at the courthouse. Among groups that filed briefs ahead of the case, the Catholic Conference of New York State was one of the main opponents of same-sex marriage, along with other religious and family-based groups from around the nation.

Next month, Congress is set to introduce the Protection of Marriage Amendment. If the amendment is passed, a federal constitutional amendment will supersede any state laws.

Lawyers for same-sex couples seeking the right to marry in New York told the state's highest court Wednesday they are being treated as "unequal citizens" and denied a constitutional right.

The 44 couples want the Court of Appeals to follow the lead of high court judges in neighboring Massachusetts and rule that New York's constitution gives same-sex couples the same right to wed that straight couples have always had.

"We are evolving as a society," said Terence Kindlon, one of the lawyers representing the couples in four lawsuits before the court, "and just because we did something 200 years ago, or 100 years ago or 50 years ago, it's not necessarily a good justification to do it now."

The couples have lost in lower appeals courts and are at odds with Gov. George Pataki's health department and state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's office, which claim New York law prohibits issuing licenses to same-sex couples.

The cases argued Wednesday were filed two years ago, when gay marriage controversies flared up from Boston to San Francisco.

ALBANY – The American Civil Liberties Union appeared before New York’s highest court today to urge the court to strike down a state law that bars same-sex couples from marriage and the hundreds of family protections provided to married couples.

“We’ve known all along that this case was headed to New York’s high court, so it was especially rewarding to hear the lawyers explain why it’s unfair for the state to ban us from marriage and the many family protections that come with it,” said Carol Snyder of White Plains. When Snyder was being treated for breast cancer, her partner of 15 years, Heather McDonnell, was repeatedly questioned and asked to leave her side even though the couple had secured paperwork hoping to avoid this kind of treatment.

The ACLU, the New York Civil Liberties Union and the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison, LLP brought the legal challenge on behalf of same-sex couples from throughout the state. In addition to the ACLU case, the New York Court of Appeals heard oral arguments today in three other cases seeking marriage for same-sex couples, including a case brought by Lambda Legal on behalf of couples from New York City and separate cases brought by couples in Ithaca and Albany. The court’s decision will apply to all lesbian and gay New Yorkers.

“We are hopeful that we succeeded in persuading the members of the Court of Appeals that denying same-sex couples protections for their families is inconsistent with New York's unique and rich history of tolerance and equality for all,” said Roberta Kaplan of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison, LLP, who argued on behalf of the couples in the case. “Lesbians and gay people who fall in love, make commitments to each other, and raise children together deserve to have all of the protections that married New Yorkers take for granted.”

“It is unfair for the state to treat committed couples as legal strangers,” added James Esseks, Litigation Director of the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project. “As many lesbian and gay couples throughout the state have learned so painfully, family protections become critical during times of crisis.”

Among the couples who were present for the arguments were:

- Cindy Bink and Ann Pachner of West Hurley, who have been together for 18 years. Bink had to leave her job as a counselor at a community college in New Jersey, where she had worked for 17 years because the college did not offer domestic partner benefits. Forced to search for a job that would allow her to cover Pachner on her health insurance policy, she finally found a job working for the City of New York that provides health care for both of them.
- Regina Cicchetti and Susan Zimmer, who live in Port Jervis, recently celebrated their 35th anniversary. Cicchetti has survived two life-threatening illnesses – breast cancer and a pituitary tumor – and says that she could never have made it through these crises without Zimmer’s support. The couple wants the security of knowing no questions will be asked about their relationship should one of them be hospitalized in the future.
- John Wessell and Billy O'Connor of New York City will be celebrating their 27th anniversary next week. Now nearing retirement, the couple worries that they would be barred from visiting each other in the hospital or kept out of conversations about emergency medical decisions. Although they have wills, they also worry that their wishes will not be respected when one of them passes away.

"Lesbian and gay couples seek out and establish long-term commitments just as straight couples do," said Arthur Eisenberg, Legal Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "There is simply no good reason for the state to refuse to provide equal benefits and equal status under the law to all couples who seek the legal protections of civil marriage."

It is unknown when the court will issue its ruling.

Esseks and Sharon McGowan of the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, Eisenberg of the NYCLU and Kaplan and Andrew Ehrlich of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison, LLP are the legal team representing the plaintiffs.

Biographical information on all of the clients, the legal documents and other background materials about Samuels and Gallagher, et. al. v. New York Department of Health are available at: www.aclu.org/caseprofiles

Republicans are trying to rally their far-right base for the fall elections with a mean-spirited sideshow threatening to the Constitution: a ban on same-sex marriage.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has endorsed the amendment, which would write bigotry into the nation's charter, by a 10-to-8 vote along party lines, and the full Senate is expected to take it up soon. Since the measure's language covers not only marriage but the "legal incidents" of marriage, its approval could jeopardize civil unions, domestic partnerships and other legal protections that many state and local governments now provide for same-sex couples and their children.

No one, including the G.O.P. strategists urging its fast-tracking, expects the amendment to get the two-thirds Congressional approval needed to send it to the states for consideration. Two years ago, when Republicans staged a Senate vote on the same dismal amendment just before the Democratic convention, it ran into unexpectedly broad opposition. Some conservatives correctly opposed grabbing power from the states by suddenly federalizing marriage law. Supporters of the amendment could muster only 48 votes, well shy of the 60 required to cut off debate and avoid a filibuster.

Plainly, the real purpose of this rerun is to provide red meat to social conservatives, and fodder for commericals aimed at senators who vote to block the atrocious amendment.

It is sad that Senator Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who personally opposes the measure, chose to lend his gavel and vote to speed it to the floor. He got angry when Senator Russell Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat, objected in forceful terms to both the amendment and the politically motivated scheduling. Mr. Specter and the other members of his committee who approved the amendment have no reason to be angry — just ashamed.

Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London and the Governor of Tokyo Shintaro Ishihara today signed a Partnership Agreement at City Hall which establishes a formal working relationship between London and Tokyo and enables each to exchange best practice and learn from each other’s policies with the aim of making the two cities better places to both live and work in.

Common issues shared by London and Tokyo include urban regeneration, transport, the environment, public safety, sports promotion, tourism and cultural exchange.

The Mayor said:

`If we are to grow a successful and sustainable capital it is important that we engage with and learn from the experiences of other great world cities especially when we share so many common issues of concern. By studying successes and the obstacles faced in delivering on key policy areas Londoners can benefit from those experiences and improve the quality of life and prosperity in our capital.’

ENDS

Notes to Editors

1. At the start of the Mayor’s term in office, five cities were identified which were comparable to London, with which it could develop a Partnership Agreements to exchange experience and best practice. These cities were Berlin, Moscow, New York, Paris and Tokyo.

(May 31, 2006) Paula Ettelbrick, Executive Director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) released the following statement in response to violence that erupted last weekend at Russia’s Gay Pride Events in Moscow:

"Public pride rallies and events are essential to free expression for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities around the world. Without them, our ability to voice our dissent and change society toward ensuring our human rights is very limited. There is no doubt that the resistance and homophobia of Moscow's mayor helped to stoke homophobic violence against a small group of lesbians and gay men who simply tried to stage a peaceful, visible presence in lieu of the gay pride parade they had hoped for. The State has the legal obligation to protect its citizens from mob violence such as this, not to stir it up and then stand back and watch it happen. The city of Moscow has defied its human rights obligation."

The Moscow-based organizers were originally turned down in their request to hold a full pride rally when Mayor Luzhkov banned the parade. On May 23, IGLHRC called on Mayor Luzhkov of Moscow to rescind his ban of Moscow’s first gay pride parade. In a letter sent to Mayor Luzhkov, IGLHRC declared that his ban is a clear violation of the European Convention on Human Rights to which Russia has agreed to by international treaties and that it directly contravenes Russia’s own Constitution.

Organizers then attempted to hold small public events at key historical locations in the city, including in Manezhnaya Square and Tverskaya Street. It was at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier that violence erupted when anti-gay protestors attacked organizers and participants. Special police forces failed to protect the organizers and even arrested them.

The International Gay and Lesbian Association in Europe (IGLA-Europe) reported violence and Moscow Militia’s failure to ensure order and protect pride event participants on Sunday, May 28. Maxim Anmeghichean, Programmes Director for IGLA-Europe, reported, “there were around 30-40 pride event participants, mostly foreigners, and anywhere between 200-300 extremist opponents, and according to the local news reports, over 1,000 OMON [special police forces] to ensure public order. Pride participants, Russian Orthodox extremists and nationalist were dragged by OMON into special buses and taken to the police station.” It was also reported that Russian Orthodox extremists were “tracking down and beating up anyone who looked ‘LGBT’ or was a foreigner.”

The travel industry has long viewed frequent fliers as fitting a certain stereotype: hard-charging men who touch down in a city, stay only as long as necessary to get their job done and leave quickly with few, if any, traces.

But as the ranks of frequent fliers grow more diverse, travel companies are catering more to the needs and wants of women, as well as minorities and the more narrow niche of gay travelers.

In general, many companies say, these travelers want a little more comfort, and they tend to stay longer and spend more money in the cities they visit.

"Men have a 'fix it and leave' attitude," says Marybeth Bond, a consultant who has advised hotels on marketing to women. "Women will take more time for themselves than men if they are traveling for business. Men will rush home, but women will stay an extra day."

When she travels, Ms. Bond said, she wants to "feel I have taken a little bit of time for myself and incorporate a thing for pleasure," such as visiting art galleries after her work is done. Longer stays, of course, can make travelers more valuable customers.

Pete Garcia, vice president for Latin America at Continental Airlines, said changing demographics were reflected in travel patterns. As more Latinos move to the United States, he said, they often mix business with pleasure when visiting their home countries.

Continental's efforts to market more to the Latino community include sponsoring events like Cinco de Mayo festivals and the Edward James Olmos Latino Book and Family Festival. The airline has also worked with the United States-Brazil Business Council and the United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce.

Community Marketing, a San Francisco firm that advises companies about gay travel marketing, said it surveyed 3,439 travelers in the United States last year and 28 percent said they had extended a business trip a day or two for leisure.

"That has something to do with the dual-income, no-kids," said Jerry McHugh, the firm's head of research and development.

The Kimpton Hotel chain is marketing more to gay and women travelers with its In Touch loyalty program, started in 2004. Through a newsletter it sends to about 5,000 gay clients, it highlights sponsorships of organizations like the Red Ribbon Campaign, which holds fund-raisers for H.I.V. and AIDS charities. It also mentions Gay Pride events in cities where it has hotels.

Kimpton, part of the Kimpton Hotel and Restaurant Group, also sends a general newsletter to 190,000 men and women who are members of its loyalty program. The chain's executives say male travelers generally give greater weight to miles and points programs when deciding where to stay, while many women travelers are equally interested in safety precautions and the organizations the hotel chain supports. In the newsletter, the chain has highlighted, for example, its support of Women's History Month in March, when Kimpton raised money for Dress for Success, a charity that helps underprivileged women find jobs and prepare for interviews.

The W Hotels chain started selling "Wonder Woman" hotel packages in October, which include emergency makeup kits and dresses designed by Diane von Furstenberg for businesswomen who might have to attend unexpected client dinners on their trips.

Jane Lehman, director of public relations for W Hotels, which is owned by Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, said the company had sold 618 such packages to date, generating more than $550,000 in revenue.

To attract more women, Wyndham Hotels has upgraded many of its amenities. Wyndham, a unit of Cendant, improved lighting and security, installed better beds and added magnifying mirrors in the bathroom.

The trick to catering to niche markets, said Cary J. Broussard, a consultant for Wyndham, is to make sure no group is alienated while "taking great ideas and implementing them for everybody."

As a sign of its intent to cater more to women travelers, American Airlines named Nora Linville director of women's sales and marketing in March. Ms. Linville said women were responsible for 70 percent of travel decisions.

"One of my key objectives is to integrate women's preferences and priorities into our marketing efforts," she said.

American, which is owned by AMR, started a marketing program aimed at gay business travelers in 2005. Its efforts include establishing sponsorship deals with Gay and Lesbian Chambers of Commerce; American has been the official airline sponsor of various chamber conventions.

Nearly 24,000 American companies belong to gay chambers, says Justin G. Nelson, president of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, based in Washington.

American Airlines has also increased its marketing to other minority groups. For example, it has sponsored organizations like the United Negro College Fund and the Asian-American Chamber of Commerce.

The travel media have also picked up on the growing clout of women. On the cover of the May issue of Business Traveler magazine, a giant briefcase-toting woman towers over a cityscape with a cover line of "What Women Want."

The magazine's editor in chief, Eva Leonard, said that when the publication asked women if hotels met their travel needs, 65 percent of the respondents said no. Many said they wanted more personalized service and a less condescending attitude, better security and hallway lighting, more comfortable beds and healthier food choices.

She said bigger hotel chains were missing an opportunity, as women now seem more drawn to smaller boutique hotels known for their style and service. But this will change, Ms. Leonard said.

"As the number of female business travelers is growing and they're being vocal about their needs, I think it's just better for everybody," she said. "I think it's to everyone's benefit because, for the most part, they are changes that men appreciate, too."